Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Macgregor, G."
  • × author_ss:"McCulloch, E."
  1. McCulloch, E.; Macgregor, G.: Analysis of equivalence mapping for terminology services (2008) 0.00 
    0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=550,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 550, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper assesses the range of equivalence or mapping types required to facilitate interoperability in the context of a distributed terminology server. A detailed set of mapping types were examined, with a view to determining their validity for characterizing relationships between mappings from selected terminologies (AAT, LCSH, MeSH, and UNESCO) to the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) scheme. It was hypothesized that the detailed set of 19 match types proposed by Chaplan in 1995 is unnecessary in this context and that they could be reduced to a less detailed conceptually-based set. Results from an extensive mapping exercise support the main hypothesis and a generic suite of match types are proposed, although doubt remains over the current adequacy of the developing Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) Core Mapping Vocabulary Specification (MVS) for inter-terminology mapping.
    Type
    a
  2. Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=764,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.
    Type
    a

Themes